What is the most Likely path that would lead America into a Authoritarian state?

[BlackSheep]

If I were to say that this is an authoritarian policy, then it would follow that the government that enforce this policy are enforcing an authoritarian policy. I fail to see why the number of states that enforce it influence the nature of the policy itself. Let me apply this logic to something else if I may.

You danced around my point. If you believe most countries are authoritarian than we had different definitions of Authoritarian.

I present all of reality to the contrary.

A meaningless statement. I could say the same and then our debate would be the equivalent of: They are so. Are not. Are so. Are not ...
We both see the world and have different takes on it.
Your non-standard definition is: "An authoritarian government is a government that focuses on the power of the state rather than the freedom of individual. "
When I explain I don't see the central element of your definition and you state "I present all of reality to the contrary" you are basically saying "Is so."

a)Firstly does it matter which people they do this to? Or do you not care as long as it isn't you? Secondly can you show me where it limits it to non citizens? As I understand it, the law applies to domestic "terrorists" as well.

Actually it very much does matter to me in a very personal way, but I don't see that as central to the idea of an authoritarian state. It has not direct bearing on the definition I gave. It is more to do with a nation being arrogant.

b)Tell me what is the proper way of infringing on peoples right?

Having a policy that allows the government to infringe on peoples rights is not the same as doing so. Having laws in place to fight terrorism, even if they are unethical does not to me make a nation inherently authoritarian. Authoritarian to me is when they sweep aside the will of the people and work at controlling them. I am not convinced that the majority of the people are not in agreement with this law.

c) This is an outright falsehood, the only thing it is about is the will and the power of the state.

Claiming that is a falsehood is essentially claiming yours is the only valid point of view. Is a law against homicide also the will of the power of the state?

We already have our hands full with the current examples... Adding more will just give you more stuff to deny and/or ignore...

A classic non-argument. I don't believe I have ignored a single point of yours nor have I used simple denial although you have. This answer is an example.

Already explained why this is fallacious... If you want more info follow the link.

You have not and I don't need to read the link. You continually ignore the main point of my argument. "...unless you feel most governments are authoritarian." Do you?

He was handing out pamphlets explaining the evils of the draft. He was a socialist and (I fairly certain) a pacifist... So unless you count accidental paper cuts as violence this criticism does not hold water.

This case was in 1919 and at that point I agree it was an authoritarian act. In 1969 this type of activity was struck down.
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was refereed to in the article you posted a link to.

If all this merely puts it on the brink what could possibly push it over?

If it is misused to attack almost anyone they wish or if the law is opened up more. If they really only use this in cases of terrorism then while it is unethical in my eyes it does not make America an authoritarian state.

[m5lange1]

Nothing has been more harmful to our freedom than the Patriot Act. It has done more damage to our country and constitution than the actual 911 event. It has been the largest step toward turning our nation into an authoritarian state.

Our reaction, and I am ashamed to say our own timidity, has given the terrorists there largest victory against the American way of life. We hurt ourselves way more than they were able to hurt us. (Not to take away the tragedy of the lives lost, but we have lost more Americans in wars reacting to 911 than we did in the event itself.

[BlackSheep]

Nothing has been more harmful to our freedom than the Patriot Act. It has done more damage to our country and constitution than the actual 911 event. It has been the largest step toward turning our nation into an authoritarian state.

Our reaction, and I am ashamed to say our own timidity, has given the terrorists there largest victory against the American way of life. We hurt ourselves way more than they were able to hurt us. (Not to take away the tragedy of the lives lost, but we have lost more Americans in wars reacting to 911 than we did in the event itself.

I agree, but what is the next step that could take us closer?

[Dismay]

You have not and I don't need to read the link. You continually ignore the main point of my argument. "...unless you feel most governments are authoritarian." Do you?

I have read the link and the fact that you cannot be bothered to read half a page is making you lose a lot of the credibility you have. The link explains why this point is not really a point at all.. I addressed this 'point' by my estimates four times by now.

This case was in 1919 and at that point I agree it was an authoritarian act. In 1969 this type of activity was struck down.
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It was refereed to in the article you posted a link to.

So you see how they selectively respect the rights of people.. I remind you this is around the time that protesters of the Vietnam were being arrested convicted and at times shot dead. This is also around the time drugs were criminalised so they could arrest protesters without it looking like an infringement on constitutional rights.

If it is misused to attack almost anyone they wish or if the law is opened up more. If they really only use this in cases of terrorism then while it is unethical in my eyes it does not make America an authoritarian state.

They are already looking to redefine terrorism in broader terms.

[BlackSheep]

I have read the link and the fact that you cannot be bothered to read half a page is making you lose a lot of the credibility you have. The link explains why this point is not really a point at all.. I addressed this 'point' by my estimates four times by now.

I understand that something being popular does not make it moral. The topic of this thread is not about morality. It is about American becoming an authoritarian state. I realize you claim it is one already. My argument is not that America is not authoritarian because the it does what the rest of the world does. I said it was common and asked if you felt most nations are authoritarian. You have countered an argument I didn't make. I am ensuring your definition is consistent by asking your opinion of those other nations.

It is not that I can't be bothered to read the page. I understand the fallacy perfectly fine. The problem is you are missing the point of my argument and substituting a straw man.

So you see how they selectively respect the rights of people.. I remind you this is around the time that protesters of the Vietnam were being arrested convicted and at times shot dead. This is also around the time drugs were criminalised so they could arrest protesters without it looking like an infringement on constitutional rights.

The case you listed was in 1919. The trial that stopped them from doing it happened during the Vietnam.conflict. While I disagree with the choice to criminalize drugs, I don;t think it was done to allow them to arrest protesters. Drug use was on the rise.

They are already looking to redefine terrorism in broader terms.

I would be interested in information regarding that, do you have sources?

[barts]

In my view, a plausible, and perhaps likely, scenario for the United States completing its total transition to an authoritarian state would be as follows.

In the wake of widespread and expanding protests (the American Spring), Congress, with the states' support, in response to losing its political legitimacy because it is universally beholden to corporate and wealthy interests, enacts a Constitutional amendment which limits campaign donations to individual citizens only, and caps the amount at $2,000, and puts strict limits on campaign spending. In other words, the Constitution is amended to get the money out politics, and put democracy back in. After the the amendments, Congress is no longer for sale.

Released from the tyranny of their corporate paymasters including defense industries, the President, Senators and Members begin to consider legislation on its merits, for how it will benefit Americans as a whole rather than how it serves the interests of corporate and wealthy donors.

Free to consider sound public policy, defense and security budgets and spending comes naturally under review, and is found to be 10 times what is necessary for defense and protecting actual American, rather than corporate, interests. Proposals are made to cut the military/security budget by 90% over 10 years. The savings are earmarked for education, health care, infrastructure improvements, nurturing small business, and tax cuts for the middle class and working poor.

Unwilling to lose their power and personal benefits, senior American military officers aided and abetted by defense contractors conspire to take control of the country. By fair means and foul, they first purge the ranks of senior officers who are not on side. They increase the pay and benefits going to the troops so that it is high enough that most of the serving men and women would be unable to find a comparable paying job--or a job at all--outside of the military. They create a "marketable" threat (Iran or any other Muslim country will do), and orchestrate a domestic attack or attacks of an order calculated to heighten public fears. In the wake of the attacks, the generals declare martial law and suspend the Constitution until the "emergency" has passed. Of course, the emergency never passes.

Dissenters are jailed or assassinated as "terrorists", or they simply disappear never to be seen again.

All media is subject to censorship, including international media. The propaganda budget (PsyOps) is increased a 100 fold or more as necessary.

Every year or two as necessary, the military government (the junta) of the United States stages an attack in a major city, and continues to perpetuate its rule. War becomes perpetual by attacking countries unable to defend themselves as needed to keep the America public in perpetual fear.

In response to US belligerence and in common defense, the nations of the world unite and isolate the United States from international participation. The dollar is abandoned as a reserve currency, and trade is suspended. The US becomes globally isolated, but invades Canada to secure that country's resources, particularly oil and water. The US becomes a North American version of North Korea or Myanmar with its population subjected to selected attacks, relentless propaganda, and censorship believing everything its military government says.

An "American Wall", few allowed in and none allowed out, is erected around what is now the United States and Canada.

[m5lange1]

Quote by Blacksheep but what is the next step that could take us closer?

The next step toward authoeritarian government, God forbid, is another terrorist attack that will fule the freightened into giving up even more of our liberties.

Lack of courage coupled with the naieve belief that, as long as you are a 'good citizen' you will never need such things as trial by jury or facing your accusor will chace the suckers and cowards right into being the timid subjects of the Authoritarion regime.

[BlackSheep]

In my view, a plausible, and perhaps likely, scenario for the United States completing its total transition to an authoritarian state would be as follows.

In the wake of widespread and expanding protests (the American Spring), Congress, with the states' support, in response to losing its political legitimacy because it is universally beholden to corporate and wealthy interests, enacts a Constitutional amendment which limits campaign donations to individual citizens only, and caps the amount at $2,000, and puts strict limits on campaign spending. In other words, the Constitution is amended to get the money out politics, and put democracy back in. After the the amendments, Congress is no longer for sale.

Released from the tyranny of their corporate paymasters including defense industries, the President, Senators and Members begin to consider legislation on its merits, for how it will benefit Americans as a whole rather than how it serves the interests of corporate and wealthy donors.

Free to consider sound public policy, defense and security budgets and spending comes naturally under review, and is found to be 10 times what is necessary for defense and protecting actual American, rather than corporate, interests. Proposals are made to cut the military/security budget by 90% over 10 years. The savings are earmarked for education, health care, infrastructure improvements, nurturing small business, and tax cuts for the middle class and working poor.

Unwilling to lose their power and personal benefits, senior American military officers aided and abetted by defense contractors conspire to take control of the country. By fair means and foul, they first purge the ranks of senior officers who are not on side. They increase the pay and benefits going to the troops so that it is high enough that most of the serving men and women would be unable to find a comparable paying job--or a job at all--outside of the military. They create a "marketable" threat (Iran or any other Muslim country will do), and orchestrate a domestic attack or attacks of an order calculated to heighten public fears. In the wake of the attacks, the generals declare martial law and suspend the Constitution until the "emergency" has passed. Of course, the emergency never passes.

Dissenters are jailed or assassinated as "terrorists", or they simply disappear never to be seen again.

All media is subject to censorship, including international media. The propaganda budget (PsyOps) is increased a 100 fold or more as necessary.

Every year or two as necessary, the military government (the junta) of the United States stages an attack in a major city, and continues to perpetuate its rule. War becomes perpetual by attacking countries unable to defend themselves as needed to keep the America public in perpetual fear.

In response to US belligerence and in common defense, the nations of the world unite and isolate the United States from international participation. The dollar is abandoned as a reserve currency, and trade is suspended. The US becomes globally isolated, but invades Canada to secure that country's resources, particularly oil and water. The US becomes a North American version of North Korea or Myanmar with its population subjected to selected attacks, relentless propaganda, and censorship believing everything its military government says.

An "American Wall", few allowed in and none allowed out, is erected around what is now the United States and Canada.

Thanks Barts. A well thought out scary possibility that is far too believable.

[BlackSheep]

The next step toward authoeritarian government, God forbid, is another terrorist attack that will fule the freightened into giving up even more of our liberties.

I can see that, and while don't believe the American government was involved in 9/11 I can see the staging of a near miss to push America over the edge.

Lack of courage coupled with the naieve belief that, as long as you are a 'good citizen' you will never need such things as trial by jury or facing your accusor will chace the suckers and cowards right into being the timid subjects of the Authoritarion regime.

This is very true as well. I have been through the criminal process and know how scary it is even with all the rights even if you are innocent. I also know how much damage innocent until proven guilty can do.

[Ken Carman]

BLS and M5

My argument is not that America is not authoritarian because the it does what the rest of the world does.

A philosophical question: simply because most, or many, nations does something, why would that make it authoritarian in nature, or not? Seems to me that has nothing to do with it.

Now I would agree if a lot of nations do something its less likely to be classified as such, but of course that's another matter.

[BlackSheep]

A philosophical question: simply because most, or many, nations does something, why would that make it authoritarian in nature, or not? Seems to me that has nothing to do with it.

Now I would agree if a lot of nations do something its less likely to be classified as such, but of course that's another matter.

I agree. More or less doing it has really nothing to do with it or my argument. I wanted to understand whether he feels most nations are authoritarian.

[Jack]

All media is subject to censorship, including international media.

If SOPA and the bill to protect online privacy pass we're more than half-way there already.

The US becomes globally isolated, but invades Canada to secure that country's resources...

I think it's also possible that we'd invade Mexico first, to obtain its oil and gas reserves but disguised as an effort to put down the violence that currently plagues much of Northern Mexico. Mexico's defenses are negligible, and if U.S. citizens failed to massively object to the takeover they'd be more likely to accept a later invasion of Canada.